Situation Normal: All Foley-ed Up
Oops, looks like the much-awaited October Surprise was indeed, as predicted by many, unleashed by a Republican (with an assist from the apostate former Bush hagiographer Mr. Woodward). But Foley's Follies are apparently doing some real damage to the incumbent party.
I won't bother to say much about Foley's oh-so-predictable Mel Gibson-ish cop-out that he was just a bit too tanked-up to comprehend that it was underage boys he was straining to fondle. Puh-leaze. Anyway, it's hard to talk (or to type for that matter) when one is drowning in a 45-foot-deep pool of schadenfreude.
Who can be more deserving of this sordid scandal than a boatload of sanctimonious, smug congressional Republicans who have poisoned the previous decade with endless self-righteous sermonizing (and companion legislation) on everything from partial-birth abortion, to gay marriage, to hysteria over sex offenders, to Teri Schiavo's feeding tube?
Please, Lord, let all these hypocritical harrumphers simmer in their own sex-scandal stew. May the hot gases they have spewed fuel the burners! That's actually something I willing to pray for.
Some encouraging press reports tell of red-hot anger erupting among the GOP's right-wing religious base. They're apparently shocked, just shocked to find that one of their most ardent congressional crusaders is, in real life, one of them-there pedophile queers. Er, make that an alcoholic, pedophile queer. Says the WaPo:
Leaders from about six dozen socially conservative groups held a conference call late yesterday afternoon, and participants were described as livid with House GOP leaders. "They are outraged by how Hastert handled this," said Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative activist who participated in the call. "They feel let down, left aside. How can they allow a guy like [Foley] to remain chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children when there is any question about e-mails?"Oh my, my. Imagine that. Next we're going to hear that even though President Bush is about to sign a bill outlawing Internet poker and thereby saving the American people from the immoral scourge of gambling, the national brick-and-mortar casino lobby is actually headed up by former RNC Chair and Bush 41 butt-buddy Frank Fahrenkopf. Horrors! The good news is that as the Foley scandal unfolds, Republican strategists are said to be already conceding the loss of 1/3 of the seats the Democrats need to win back a House majority. And that's by their count and with 6 weeks to go before the actual vote. Various Republican candidates are now scrambling to give back money donated by Foley's PAC including endangered New Mexico congresswoman Heather Wilson (who I wrote about a few months ago). If I were running the DCCC, I'd order all Democratic candidates to take a vacation for the next month-and-half and keep their mouths shut, lest they risk snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Foley scandal has already engulfed the very-deserving, oafish House Speaker Denny Hastert. So, who's next?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
It’s the Roy Cohn mentality at work, isn’t it? Homosexuality must be suppressed in the general community, but a privileged few of those who render important service to the state may indulge in it if they wish.
It would seem likely that the idea was to keep this under wraps until after the election and then execute Foley quietly — or maybe do like the Catholic Church, and get him a quiet out of the way job in the administration, or an ambassadorship to a country with a nice quiet sex tourism industry . . .
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:01 am
The Los Angeles Times reports today that Foley’s proclivities for boys was well known among the pages themselves, who passed the word, and by one of Foley’s top aides who would accompany him to keep him out of trouble. But Marc is right, Democrats are best off keeping low profile, sitting back and enjoying this while the Republicans self destruct on their own.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:44 am
Let me just take a second to say sorry Michael Turner in case he does check my mea culpa on “Bum Rap” that feminist comment was meant for Grumps.
And as for Jim R if he shows up here, the point which you chose to ignore is that these guys: Ted Bundy and Alex Kelly and you can throw in Andrew Luster could get laid by anybody they wanted at any time and did, these guys had tons of girlfriends, however they chose to hunt, force, drug and in the case of Bundy murder the carefully selected victims of their crimes. For the power, the thrill of taking it and humilating someone they believe beneath them. Bundy even admitted it. With 500,000 – 1,000,000 sex workers in the US who average 800 – 1000 customers a year, some whose going rate is as cheap as $20 why would you risk imprisonment or even death when you can quietly pay someone to do every dirty perverted fantasy you ever wanted. You completely ignore motivation and focus on the end result. Talk to any DA, police officer or criminal psychologist and they will tell you one thing these people have an overwhelming need for control. Foley was trying to pimp these kids, I’ll pick you up in my BMW, take you out for an expensive dinner…
As a spicy person (I’m paraphrasing the Govenator), I am never surprised by political hyprocracy otherwise I wouldn’t exist. The Gibson defense is pathetic and I was disgusted by the Jedi Mind Trick that flack was trying pull by saying that this guy is not a perv.
This has been a long time coming by making character assassination the main draw, now open season on everyone. George Allen (who also has to give his Foley dough back) didn’t see that one coming in VA, that being a So Cal teen that wore Confederate belt buckle, drove around with a Confederate flag in his car and a fondness for the n-bomb or using an obscure French Arabic slur would come back to haunt him. Now he wants to talk just about the issues. Pirro in New York is taking a beating over her cheating hubby and who’s coming to her defense – NOW. This has been a long time coming for Hastert – saying George Soros got his money from drugs, wanting to bulldoze New Orleans and his good friend jack.
Here’s some retro Foley – lets go back to 2002 and Tom Daschle. “Foley Questions Daschle’s Patriotism”
“It looks like his patriotism has gone the way of his majority,” Foley said. “I just hope this rhetoric of fear doesn’t consume the minority leader. It could prove not only disastrous for his party – once again – but the nation.”
Hmmmm. I believe he was as they say in baseball the lead off hitter with this bull****.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:57 am
“But Marc is right, Democrats are best off keeping low profile, sitting back and enjoying this while the Republicans self destruct on their own. ”
I’m not sure what the best political strategy for the Dems is on this, because I’m not a political strategist and don’t really want to be consumed by that method of slicing things, but I’m more than a bit amazed that Marc and MB, who usually criticize the Dems for not showing any leadership or backbone are telling them the best strategy in an issue of internal Congressional oversight and ethics is to just sit back and keep their mouths shut. Frankly, that strikes me as some combination of stupid and irresponsible. Especially after they just tried a similiar posture with the torture bill (admittedly a bigger policy issue, although seamy Congressional misconduct is, unfortunately, likely to become at least as emblematic and actually garner more attention in our current cultural climate). They, of course, ended up looking lame and come-lately – fullfilliing a stereotype slung at them from both the right and the left.
The Democrats need to lead if they want to lead. Sitting on their hands while the GOP tries to mend it’s fences and cover it’s ass strikes me as too much of nothing. Should we leave it to Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly and The Washington Times to ensure the ethics of Congress ?
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:47 am
Care should be taken by the Dems least the thing become a sort of congressional McMartin trial; I’m not surprised there is already speculation about what other pages might be saying about other people making it into the press. These overheated atmospheres tend to lead to false charges if not outright hysteria. And everybody can’t produce a legal team like Bill Clinton’s.
On the Torture Bill Reg, I’m not sure the Dems had a lot of alturnatives. Had they raised hell after McCain cut the deal, they would have been written off as obstuctions and spoil sports, and they’re numbers would have gone down more in the pursuit of a loss. WHICH would have left them mocked as poor stratigists. Not around HERE of course……..
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 am
So much opportunity for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot on this one. The more they speak out on this subject, the greater the chance for the public to be educated about Gerry Studds – say, didn’t he serve an additional dozen or so years after actually having sexual relations with that underage page? – by folks like Bill O’Reilly. And there is always Barney Frank and the prostitution ring. And based on the text of the earlier emails (already leaking out) that Hastert and Shimkus had seen last year, are the Dems really confident that something worse from their own won’t show up in the Washington Times?
From a strategic perspective, the operative term for the Dems on the Foley subject should be ‘duck and cover’. Let the GOP run with this; they’re doing so well on their own anyway.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:24 am
lost in the shuffle of all your glee, marc
everybody, and i mean, everybody in DC knew foley was gay and very friendly with the pages–friendly meaning he always said hello, doted on them, asked their names and generally, probably acted like a congressional “queenâ€. in fact his goodbye speeches at the podium on the floor brought him to tears and the pages to laughter. what he never did, as far as anyone knew or knows to date, is actually touch or molest anyone. there is no knowledge of him actually having sex as some others have in the past. knowing that as background, five years ago was hastert supposed to start a witch hunt into foley’s background because he was gay––based on “you know, all gays are predatory pedophiles or statutory rapistsâ€. give me a break.
today the IM’s change everything. however they don’t indicate pedophilia–they do indicate trolling for pages aged 16-18. no matter how despicable this may be, it may not even be illegal. either way, foley has been shamed out of congress by republicans. studds got re-elected five more times. there’s the difference.
the only thing i’m certain of is that the dems could care less about the pages–that’s why one of their operatives hid/held the IM’s until now to try to get a house seat.
i’m willing to bet that a lot of the people wanting Hastert to go have wanted him to go for a long time now. personally i don’t have a dog in this fight but based on what we know so far that foul odor we all smell is hypocrisy
and finally
and for anyone naive enough to think this all “just happened” this should put that canard to rest…..this from early 2005
http://tinyurl.com/jrux3
Birds of a Feather
Two haters, one picture:
Gay-bashing straight man John Ashcroft and Gay-bashing gay man Mark Foley
This is United States Congressman Mark Foley
He voted this week for a law to allow hate groups to fire gay and lesbian people at will
The law he is supporting will overrule ANY local laws on the matter.
MARK FOLEY IS GAY
MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT.
and this:
From the gay outing website on March 22, 2005:
blogACTIVE.com has confirmed with three separate sources that, in fact, US Rep. Mark Foley is a gay man. Foley has voted to support discrimination against gay men and lesbians on more than one occasion.
A source has confirmed with blogACTIVE.com that Foley lives a practically an out life at his Florida residence, often seen entertaining gay men, some of whom the source described as “close to underage.”
…I’ve thought hard about what kind of TAKE ACTION would work, but there is really is none right now. Everyone already knows Foley’s a self hating closet case. When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface…….
yes, yes, the righteous heroes of the left.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:26 am
Of course Den has the right strategy. This isn’t about the latest page predator found in our Gov’t and what to do about this historical problem. This isn’t about Gov’t leaders protecting themselves and their party members instead of children of their constituents under their care.
This is about something much more important folks. This is about gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, sex offenders rights, and shadenfraude.
Don’t be stupid and open up that pedatory can too far. Some of our worms may crawl out, and we know, that wouldn’t be good………for us. Shut up and enjoy the shaderfraude.
Thanks reg for giving it a try anyway. Stop acting like you really give a shit. This is political war, and we have to understand children will be amongst the victims.
it’s to be expected some victims will be
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:31 am
That would be ‘schadenfreude’ and drop the last line.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:39 am
Hastert’s days are numbered btw. If you guys don’t fire him in the next election, we will after the next election.
Of course it would be way to much for to any political hack to do the right thing and resign. Their job is to get other people to resign that have made them ‘look’ bad. But, that doesn’t stop us from trying, and conservatives are working on it right now. We will have his head, trust me.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 am
“but I’m more than a bit amazed that Marc and MB, who usually criticize the Dems for not showing any leadership or backbone are telling them the best strategy in an issue of internal Congressional oversight and ethics is to just sit back and keep their mouths shut. Frankly, that strikes me as some combination of stupid and irresponsible.”
Well, reg, you’re of course entitled to your opinion and you don’t hesitate to give it. But in my view, the Dems are best keeping a low profile because otherwise it will look like they are trying to make political hay out of the Foley situation and don’t really care that much about the kids–which, in fact, is exactly the case.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 am
Jim, ah..you be babbling. Ah yes, our favorite german of the W years, “shadenfraude.” If only the right had gotten hp to the concept about five years. earlier. Sen Clinton’s political career is essentially a gift for suffering your dancing in the streets over her public humiliation. (A humiliation many women could identify with.) You wrote the book on bloodthirsty politics(it’s called “The Starr Report”) so I can forgive your projections here…
And we see Reg, that what I spoke of has allready started, the little Joe McCarthys are waving their envelopes. Don’t expect retractions when it comes to naught. Neid, take a look at what you have shown us, for it is nothing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:01 am
Balter, please, enough of the smaltz about “not caring about the kids.” I would say both the Dems and Repubs, by and large, care just about as much as the should about these particulair kids. They are sharp, gifted, kids with a leg up on life who can no doubt weather a few clumsy passes from old repressed homosexuals as they explore their own budding sex lives.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:03 am
btw don’t misconstrue my remarks above as meaning that the Democrats should not play dirty with the Foley issue just as the Republicans have played dirty with every single issue which in fact is the only way they know how to play. The Bushies have done so much long term damage to the interests of Americans and killed so many people directly or indirectly that they deserve everything they are handed. I’m only saying that the best way for the Democrats to play dirty in this case is to not make it so obvious that they are doing so. Let the Washington Times call for Hastert to step down, like they just have, and more damage will be done to the Republicans in the long run.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:06 am
“I would say both the Dems and Repubs, by and large, care just about as much as the should about these particulair kids.”
Bullshit. These are politicians, Wall, and they are acting just like politicians do in these kinds of situations, on both sides of the aisle.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:19 am
Why on earth would you want to drop the last line…it’s like a window into my soul…rare insight…I’m impressed that you saw right through me.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:20 am
that was for JR
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:41 am
I have to say that, although I’m almost as cynical about politicians as anyone, I find it disturbing that some on both left and right seem united in the notion that nobody who runs successfully for political office or serves in Congress could possibly have any humanity left. This is, frankly, more of a reflection on you than on several hundred individuals who you don’t fucking know – anymore than JR knows me when he tosses the same implication in my direction. Some of the worst people can obviously be found in Congress, but also some folks who’s good intentions and values mean a lot more than those of most folks who show up to sling arrows here because they’ve put them on the line in a public arena and tried to stand for something. Compromise, ego and ambition are essential to succeed in politics, but frankly, given the public scrutiny all politicians are subject to, I’ll give the majority of them credit for standing up and taking a shot that most of us are too chickenshit to even attempt – because it’s so fucking easy to sit back and watch folks who enter that arena fail, either through their own personal weaknesses and limitations or those of the system. I know I don’t have the stomach or skills it takes to succeed even marginally in electoral politics or as a legislator at any level and I give people credit who do. Lots of them turn out to be creeps, etc., but even the least among them deserve more respect than critics who can only muster cheap shots that paint every person who devotes themselves to public service via politics as some kind of monster or whore. Criticize people for what they’ve actually done or failed to do. Fine. But scattershot condemnations of politicians – which we all do out of frustration at time – aren’t serious argument. Somebody said something once about “Casting the first stone” and I doubt there’s anybody here who’s so fucking virtuous or who’s achievements in changing the world are so monumental that they shouldn’t at least give some thought to that advice before they assume the worst about everyone who’s served in Congress.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:44 am
Patrick Neid, this comment:
“the only thing i’m certain of is that the dems could care less about the pages–that’s why one of their operatives hid/held the IM’s until now to try to get a house seat.”
which is false doesn’t add much to the persuasiveness of the rest of your screed.
Get your facts straight, and then come back to the table.
MB is similarly cynical about the Democrats. He doesn’t trot out Patrick’s tales, but his broad brush strokes offer so little substantiation that his characterizations are equally laughable.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Well said, reg. Cynicism is fine. But if all you are is cynical, you’re not much help.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:48 am
“Let the Washington Times call for Hastert to step down, like they just have, and more damage will be done to the Republicans in the long run.”
I have to say, honestly and without any sarcasm, that I don’t get that at all, from any angle. Even as smart politics, why should the Dems allow the crackpot Washington Times seem like the folks who are standing up to sleaze and abuse of leadership ? Where does that leave them ? Was your advice to them a few weeks ago to shut up and hide behind John McCain on the torture bill because otherwise they’d invite criticism of their own weaknesses ?
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:50 am
Quite right, Reg. And I must say, Balter, your brief posts leave me scraching my head(once again) at the Cooperesque, tit-for-tat, plague on both there houses school.
So our side should fight ruthlessly against the other ruthless side; but we must never surrender our smug supiriority over these damned politicains. These are damnable hacks, who, in this case, are apeing fake consern for a group of overacheving teenagers, whom as far as I can see, are in no real danger from anyone.
On the same morning, of course, we are all ignoring one of the most ghastly, heart breaking child murders to hit the national media in quite some time.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 am
“It’s the Roy Cohn mentality at work, isn’t it?”
You can’t disagree, but as a parable about the closet one has to suspect that there are much more powerful men in the GOP who have turned their demons on the American people.
If I had to guess, Mr. Rove’s name would appear at the top of the list.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 am
Wall, if you want to get out there and fight against the exploitation and victimization of children, then I will be right there with you–no cynicism would be appropriate to that. But what we are talking about here is what is motivating the Democrats, and anyone not a fool can see it is politics. Let’s not forget to distinguish these two things because it would be incredibly naive.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
One reason the Democrats ought to play it low key is that the Republican base is much more hard line on sexual malfeasance than they are. In their eyes the pages are 12-year-old Boy Scouts, not borderline jailbait. The Christian Coalition folks could wind up pushing for an all-out witch hunt, and the expiation they demand could be far more harsh than anything the Democrats could ask for.
Karl Rove is a feggeleh?
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 am
OK, this is going to sound like apologetics for Mark Foley, but … read carefully.
There was a post above about Foley as a gay-basher (in the figurative sense). He did vote GOP party line on certain litmus test issues, but otherwise, the Human Rights Campaign gave him 88 out of 100, beating out just about every other Republican in the House, quite a few Dems, and coming up just even with Barbara Lee, a rep from a very liberal and gay-friendly district.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003418M
Foley was admired and appreciated in his district and in the GOP side of the House as a dutiful public servant. That’s probably why they cust him so much slack, knowing what they knew.
Why don’t we just say he was a conservative gay man who was seduced not only by power (and maybe by the wiles of a few young guys), but also by a very natural and positive human desire: to be of service. Henry Kissinger said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Well, if so, openness and kindness have to be running a close second. If, as some reports say, he lived almost openly gay in his district, and was rather frequently visited by young men on the verge of being underage, it’s probably because the dynamics of sexuality and power is no respecter of sexual orientations.
Monica Lewinsky had power–the power of being young and dishy. Some of the young men in Foley’s Florida social circle and around Congress were attracted to his power, perhaps, but also probably by his openness and generosity, and some of them undoubtely used their own power–the power of youth and attractiveness.
It’s not a clear-cut case of pedophilia in practice (so far as we know at this point.) It IS a clear-cut case of moralistic hypocrisy for political gain, and I think that’s what we should focus on. Gay rights organizers sound, on the whole, pretty nervous and dismayed about this whole thing, and I can understand why. It could turn pretty ugly against them as well as against Foley.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
As a resident in Tome Reynolds district, it is interesting to note that his chief of staff was trying to get ABC to shut up about the IMs last Friday. Reynolds will have a hard time denying participating in this coverup.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Certainly Democrats are often paralyzed by the thought that Republicans may attack them and make them look bad. Making any sort of fuss would incite finger pointing and the insistance that the Dems are playing politics. Reg is right that Democrats shouldn’t be intimidated and should stand up behind their principles. Only thing is, I’m not exactly sure what principles apply here. Don’t sexually harass under-age interns? It’s not like they’re going to sell the idea that Republicans are pro-page abuse and Democrats are against it. The only realated argument, it seems to me, is that we have a corrupt congress that needs some oversight. And that’s not really an argument about principles so much as it is about politics. If I were a Dem politico, I’d hold on to that argument and see how things play out. Right now, the salacious details and outraged religious right are more than enough blood in the water to incite a media frenzy.
Oh, and I just read Robert Fiore’s comment and he’s exactly right.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:56 am
I often take issue with Michael Turner but his comments above are impeccably nuanced in my view. Yet one more reason to be skeptical about any overwrought Democratic Party self righteousness on this issue. And once more with feeling: What’s waking Nancy Pelosi up in the middle of the night this week is not anguish for those poor pages but thinking about how best to make hay out of this in the midterms. To that, I say right on.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 am
Michael B, by all means go after Nancy Pelosi for the bad things she does, but you’re not making much of a case for your relevance in this discussion when you inject speculation about what she’s thinking about at night.
Frankly there’s enough hypocrisy to go around. It’s part of the human condition and it isn’t the exclusive possession, by any means, of those who choose to invest themselves in the political discourse.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 am
mr. davidson,
you said
“Patrick Neid, this comment:
“the only thing i’m certain of is that the dems could care less about the pages–that’s why one of their operatives hid/held the IM’s until now to try to get a house seat.â€
which is false doesn’t add much to the persuasiveness of the rest of your screed.
Get your facts straight, and then come back to the table.
MB is similarly cynical about the Democrats. He doesn’t trot out Patrick’s tales, but his broad brush strokes offer so little substantiation that his characterizations are equally laughable.”
well we shall see mr davidson. i gave you the link to the web site. the FBI will be paying him a visit. i’ll keep you posted……..
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
“Frankly there’s enough hypocrisy to go around.”
You bet there is! The proof is that not only are the Democrats pretending that they are losing sleep over these vulnerable pages, but so are some bloggers here. Get real. The Foley scandal is pure politics, and those who pretend otherwise are the ones making themselves irrelevant to the discussion.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
If I were Nancy Pelosi, here’s what would be keeping me up at night:
What if more than one Congressman has been fiddling around with pages (there are, after all, precedents on the public record)? And what if even a single Democrat were implicated?
That wouldn’t change a lot of things, especially on the Republican hypocrisy front. But it would muddy the waters enough to give the Republicans some cover for the upcoming election.
The delightful thing about sex scandals is that they are no respecters of party, or position, or power. The downside is that they bring out the worst in everybody — funny how moralising crap seems to engender only more moralising crap. Fasten your seatbelts, everyone, for a truly sordid few weeks.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 am
“…the apostate former Bush hagiographer Mr. Woodward…”
Just wanted to say, that is a beautifully succint, descriptive phrase. Won’t find that kind of style in the local newspaper!
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 am
Michael, if your point is that there are other issues to be discussed in Congress than the Foley affair, I agree. That the Democrats and the media and the rest of us shouldn’t be talking about this as a very poignant example of the culture of hypocrisy, deceit, and corruption that has been the Republican rule for the last 6 years is an abnegation of responsibility.
“The Foley scandal is pure politics….”
In your view politics is dirty, and those who engage in it are either naive or manipulators themselves. That’s a dark view of democracy that I don’t share.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
patrick neid,
Your link only talks about Foley’s homosexuality, which apparently was well known even in his district. There is nothing there about his being a pedophile, unless you’re one of those who equates the two. Are you?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
My comments, as I think was clear, were about the Dems response to the failure of leadership and oversight on the part of Hastert & Friends. It’s not that the Dems should parade their personal righteousness to crucify Foley. He’s gone. What happened with him personally isn’t hard to figure out.
Frankly, I think the accusations that nobody in Congress could possibly care about whether this was handled properly and that there’s nothing involved except politics is pretty creepy. My assumption is that there are GOP reps who are pissed off about this substantively as well as politically. Everything in the Beltway is politics by definition, ultimately, but for the Dems not to raise questions of leadership and responsibility regarding Hastert, et. al. would be truly nauseating and deserving of the disdain that MB and Marc routinely dish out. This is a pattern of the House “leadership” that transcends this incident ” – if the Dems can’t make some degree of distinction between themselves and the current cabal on issues of competence and even a reasonable degree of integrity that the public is following, there’s no point in having an opposition. Frankly, I don’t think Nancy Pelosi could satisfy MB if she cured cancer. It would just be “politics” because, after all, she’s incapable of actually caring about anything. If some Democrat is fooling around with underage kids, frankly I hope it comes out. And I would hope that Pelosi, et. al. would deal with it responsibly and with dispatch. I wasn’t disappointed by that scumbag Jefferson getting caught, assuming he’s guilty (which is pretty obvious). I think that folks aren’t naive about everyone in Congress being above board – but I also believe they expect both sides of the aisle to deal with malfeasance when they find out about it. That’s what’s more problematic for the GOPers – and would be, deservedly, for the Dems in a current, parallel situation – than the fact that one guy was trolling among underage pages.
And, look over there: GARY STUBBS!!! – is a nonsensical response. It’s like saying that we shouldn’t worry about habeus corpus because FDR rounded up Japanese Americans. The essence of not having a rational argument.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Also, the Stubbs issue doesn’t address what his colleagues did in response, which is what’s primarily become at issue here. That Stubbs was re-elected is between him and his constituents. That he was censured is between him and his colleagues. How Stubbs acted in response to censure is between him and his conscience. I haven’t bothered to dredge up the details beneath the broad strokes that have been used here as smokescreen because, frankly, it’s irrelevant to this Congressional leadership, on either side of the aisle.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
reg -
Gerry Studds, not Gary Stubbs. The name has a mnemonic ring.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Usually I am in concurence – over the two party duopoly – with Michael Balter. I think though that this is beyond politics.
I went to prep school near DC in the early 90s, and there was a student who worked as a page in the summers who claimed that lots of Republicans hit on “the kids” and he himself was molested, and ended up developing a bad cocaine problem – leading his folks to send him to said boarding school. There have been stories for years about right wing sexual blackmail networks. Obviously this is the tip of the iceberg. I don’t think it is a big deal because it will be good for Democrats. I think its a big deal because it could bnig down a network of bigwig chickenhawks (in the old sense of the word.) Witness Drudge’s comments about the kids leading Foley on….this is the talking point from Rove (Fat Karl in S/M circles) central.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Reg, you make some good points and I am not trying to argue that Pelosi or other Dems have no hearts or souls and don’t care about anything other than getting elected. But I am saying that with the midterms just over a month away electoral politics are the primary thing in everyone’s mind, and this scandal is taking on the kind of proportions it is precisely for that reason. My first reaction to the Foley resignation was, how is this going to effect the election, and I’ll bet nearly every Democrat no matter how sincere had the same reaction–including you, if you would be honest about it.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
ooops…
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“oops” was to evets. thanx
MB – of course I’ve thought about the politics of this, and it probably was my second thought, if not my first, which was more like “creepy”. But I don’t place some small hope in the Dems because they’re handing me a contract for cement if they pass a highway bill – it’s because I think they are, to some degree that actually matters, more likely to be competent and show a modicum of sense – reasonable pragmatism, if not real vision – on some critical issues, side more often – albeit inconsistently and well below the bar of, say, the Sermon on the Mount or the Communist Manifesto – with the folks who aren’t rich and powerful and, yes, act at least a bit more ethically than the current cabal.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
This is pretty incredible, if you haven’t seen it yet…
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/03/nrsc-uses-small-children-as-human-shields/
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Incredible, indeed. As I see it Shimkus, Reynolds, and Hastert will go. The question is who will get to them first, the GOP lynch mob or the voters in November?
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Well, for the record, I’m glad to say I was wrong about something regarding this Foley thingy. I thought the GOP would come up with some pretzel-like logic to replace Foley on the ballot. The pretzel’s not there to chew. Florida law says Foley’s name has to stay on the ballot. The GOP gets a replacement, but one who can only receive votes through Foley’s name. The replacement is, um, er, oh…what’s his name?….
Sweet. Sorta like a scarlet letter.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
They’d be better off with a write-in or sticker campaign. How many Republicans will have the stomach to actually put an “x” next to Foley’s name even if the votes will actually go to the other fellow. Also imagine his campaign slogan “a vote for Mark Foley is a vote for me.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Well I can tell Marc and Michael that Democrats are already using this in ads. Chris Matthews showed one today on HARDBALL and it was a doozy! All but accused Hastart and the GOP leadership of obstruction of justice.
And just think, it was only a week ago that Karl Rove was bragging to colleagues that a big “October Surprise” was coming!
Lets see. Woodward’s book, the NIE, the 250 visits to the WH by Abramof and company and Condi “forgetting” being warned about you know who. And now a juicy sex scandal – make that a homosexual sex scandal – to really piss off the Christers in the base.
Talk about your “Perfect Storm”.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
“Frankly, I think the accusations that nobody in Congress could possibly care about whether this was handled properly and that there’s nothing involved except politics is pretty creepy.”
Right on. We have become so cynical that we think they always have an angle. As it happens, I know a soon-to-be-departing US Senator quite well, and he has an admirable amount of integrity and is fastidious about his public duties. Congress is just like the whole society on a small scale; admittedly with a disproportionate amount of millionaires, but that’s another matter.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
The ad is by Patty Wetterling and you can see it on her web sight. Also access it via ATRIOS
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:04 pm
“Well I can tell Marc and Michael that Democrats are already using this in ads.”
I am shocked, shocked! that the Democrats would exploit this tragic situation for partisan political purposes.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Seriously, though, it’s too bad that the war in Iraq, carte blanche for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon, and obstructionism on global warming issues are not enough to insure a Democratic victory in the midterms. No, what we need is a pedophile sex scandal. Whatever it takes…
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
MB – the thing that makes this so bad for the GOP is that it’s going to turn off a lot of the true believers. I can’t imagine anything more likely to alienate the red-hot Christer and right-wing blogger communities and create serious internal fractures among the Kool-Aid base a month before the elections. That’s going to hurt them bad. It’ll far more than compensate for the disappointment and waffling of lefty libs – like myself – who thought the Dems had done a terrible job of fighting the torture bill and were feeling less than fired up.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:46 pm
reg, I hope you’re right. The one good thing is that we are now on Day 5 of this scandal with no sign of letting up. The longer it goes on the better.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
“I can’t imagine anything more likely to alienate the red-hot Christer ” But who do they turn to? They have the same age-old, lesser-of-two-evils problems the dems do. The kool-aid drinkers aren’t likely to suddenly vote D. The ones this will matter with are the independent minded voters who will turn the election one way or the other. And in that case, it’s REALLY bad for the Republicans.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
My Fellow Americans, please do not get distracted by another sex scandal! Did we learn nothing from ABC’s “Path to 9/11″? That is when the evil terrorists plot against us.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Dan O they don’t vote Dem. They just don’t vote.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:35 pm
And Marc, here is another reason why Dems are different (and better) than Republicans. This ought to hit close to home – at least with your daughter. MYDD has a little item today about the NLRB ruling that people with any supervisiory positions, no matter how small, are “Management” and ineligable to join unions. It will affect millions. Just another reason to use any scandal to dump these slugs.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“No, what we need is a pedophile sex scandal. Whatever it takes…”
Michael -
If you follow the link below to Ben Stein’s judicious take on all this, you may be quickly disabused of the notion that poitics can ever rise above the level of junior high school tribal thuggery. It may also ease your conscience about the Dems winning because of somthing this creepy( though I gotta admit there’s somthing stomach-turning about the fact that this is what it takes).
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/10/win_ben_steins.shtml
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I agree with some of the sentiments echoed above that now is not the time for the Dems to back down, however they don’t have revell in the hysteria or the man himself. Take the high road and focus on better oversight for both parties work in reinvigorating the vote in their favor. Pushing for what the FBI knew to is important as more info comes to light that they too sat on it.
However, I do get a bit queasy when I read some of the posters rationalize Foley’s behavor when he is affordedl the full rights of the constitution and the teenagers with whom he is disscussing masturbation do not. I like Mavis’ use of sexual harrassment for political reasons. Clearly the kid who whistle and the recipient of the some of the more innocous IM’s, felt that way and from what is being reported he is now receiving threats. I think you can care about the issue and politics and still be astute is a straw man’s game.
Monica powerful? Effective, authoritative, influential, potent, strong, no she was an easy mark, she could have been any semi-attractive woman at the right time and place.
I think voters have a right to be a bit cynical given the emphais on spin over results, but just because you are not surprised by the actions of others does not necessarily make you a cynic, maybe someone who just appreciates the chaos theory.
Where did I go wrong? – Lee Atwater
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Dag Evets,
I’ll never be able to watch Ferris Bueller again.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
An interesting day of posts, going beyond Reg’s point… I want these kids looked after by their parents, friends, and the police force. I don’t want Nanci Polosi or Dennis Hastert lying in bed worrying about them.
Interestingly, I find Cummings post AND Druge’s rationalizations interesting and credible. Monica Lewinski, just a long in the tooth teenager, spent about 14 hours total with Bill Clinton. She made it clear She was availible for oral sex. When he broke it off; she tried to hold him up for a seventy thousand dollar a year job. Tricky, given the fact that She was barely qualified for the cosmetic counter at Macys. He gave it a shot.
Point being, She was victim of a sexual preditor like Andrea Dworkin was the victim of Cheesecake. I think these kids are sharp, ambitious, and ruthless. They’ve been brought up in moraly bankrupt times (plenty of blame to go around) and winning is the only thing. By the same token, Cummings dark implications do not seem beyond consideration.
We shall see….
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Wall, you demonstrate two opposing, yet complimentary views of human nature, one very disturbing, one even moreso. Perhaps I can say this – I’ll grant you all you say and then some, and still think that this points to something larger and more disturbing than most people can imagine, all in terms of how Washington itself is run – on blackmail and private espionage networks.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
“Monica powerful? Effective, authoritative, influential, potent, strong, no she was an easy mark, she could have been any semi-attractive woman at the right time and place.”
Please. What was that line she used with a friend? That she was going to Washington to earn her presidential knee-pads? She helped *arrange* for the right time and place.
Power is power, whether it’s used legitimately or not. If Monica was anybody’s sexual abuse victim, she was her mother’s sexual abuse victim. Just in case you wonder where anybody that young could have copped such seductive moves.
I can’t believe we’re arguing about this again….
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“She was victim of a sexual preditor like Andrea Dworkin was the victim of Cheesecake.”
Since Dworkin was an obsessive anti-porn crusader, with a pretty broad definition of the stuff, is that line some kind of archaic double-entendre ?
And am I a bad person if I laughed ?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Holy shit, I can’t believe this….I did not see it, but read it on a blog, so it’s second hand, but evidently on the O’Reilley Factor they identified Foley as a Democrat on three different shots during the course of the report.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Ok my turn:
I was joking about the Dems staying mum for the next 5 weeks. Mostly, I don’t much care what “the Dems” do. And more importantly, there’s no such thing as “the Dems.” Party discipline? U’ve gotta be kidding. Every Democrat runs and will run the campaign he or she thinks is most opportune to get elected.
On the other big point of debate tonight: There are undoubtedly some decent folks among the Congressional delegations of both parties. But neither party can make much of a claim to putting defense of anything in front of their partisan interests. Every issue is up for sale. Look no further than the execrable vote for torture last week by “progressive” Sherrod Brown.
I will also note such repellant views as those of Mr. Wall who concedes that Monica was but a long in the tooth teenager but was abused not by the 50 yr old lech who wielded the power of the presidency, but instead by her mother! Maybe Monica should have checked into rehab because she let herself be fucked by the President of the United States!
What Foley has done and what Clinton did are not the same, for sure. But Clinton was a dirty old man who didnt blink in compromising his party and his constituency in order to cavort with a 23 year old intern… This would have been ugly enough if this had been ur run of the mill supervisor/employee sort of thing. But the President of the US and an intern? Not terribly different than a congressman and a page, I think. I am NOT going to rehash that case for the umpteenth time. Suffice it to say that the Democratic Party covererd his ass and attacked Lewinsky (and all of Bill’s other consorts) with all of the same partisan passion that we now see from Repubs in regard to Hastert. OK, I’ll say it again: If Clinton had had the dignity to resign, George W Bush would have never been president. Burp!
Let me also say to RLC– for how many more years are u planning to tell me that the Democrats are “better” than the Republicans? I thought that was obvious and really I know almost no one who thinks differently. So, now that we have stipulated to that monumental fact are we allowed to dissent from Democrats without the ritualistic lecture that they are the lesser of two evils?
Thanks for the heads-up about the NLRB. My daughter, who works as a health-care organizer, has been following this closely.
As it turns out, The Daughter is spending this semester in Washington DC working as a policy analyst/intern at an Undisclosed Location. She is now the same age –22- that Monica Lewinsky was when the President started playing grab-ass with her. All I have to say is pity the poor 50 year old who would attempt that with my kid. She’d kick his ass all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue if I didn’t get to him first.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
AND, the IHT is reporting that Fox knew about the Foley allegations a year ago. Excellent stuff.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I can’t believe that I’m defending my point either.
Folks missunderstood my point completely. I by no means think or am implying Monica was a victim let alone one of sexual abuse – that’s ridiculous. She was a very willing participant, enoyed it, but a Mata Hari? He could have said no. The kneepads comment was a sophomoric sexual boast at best. How hard is it to “seduce” someone who had a demonstrated lack of impulse control? She was about as intriguing and powerful as tissue paper. He didn’t take advantage of her and she didn’t take advantage of him, and that’s what made this whole soap opera so absurd.
Wall, I feel your need to travel to the darkside and it would make for a great Patterson book. I’ll risk admitting I’m probably one of the youngest people on this post, and probably raised during these “morally bankrupt times” you describe. I grew up around the Beltway and have friends involved in local as well as national DC politics. I knew a few pages and they were ambitious, but not that ambitious. That’s not to say that I didn’t hear a story or two, but certainly not on the comical levels that you’re implying.
I agree that whether it’s Hasterts or Pelosi they should not be worrying about pages. However, if something comes to their attention that does not pass the “smell test” they should pass it on to the appropriate channels regardless of the political fall out. As soon as Foley asked the last page for a photo he was “out”. He and his parents didn’t even want to press charges again Foley, they just wanted it to go away, no blackmail included, however, unfortunately for them, this has turned out to be much larger than what happened between their son and Foley.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:26 am
What is so amusing reading the comments on this post is how many of you are the Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys, the Bill O’Reillys of the left. The very ‘defend your sleazes, your incompetents, your screw ups, your party before people at all costs’ with the same partisan vigor you so despise in them.
And the mental moral gymnastics you go through to justify such low expectations from our leaders and representatives, lower even than what you would allow for yourselves, on the grounds everyone has their dark side and s*** happens is appalling. You are just as blatantly partisan, you are just as hard headed, you are just as religious, and you are just as blinded by your own idealogy you can’t even think straight.
Hastert had the duty as leader of ‘our’ House of Representatives to do the right. He cannot use the excuse he didn’t read the emails, he should have. He cannot use the excuse he didn’t know about the IMs, he didn’t ask. He cannot use the excuse he didn’t know about Foley’s unusual behavior with pages, it was well known.
We must have STANDARDS. He’s got to go.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:31 am
That would be ‘to do the right thing’.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Jim – you’ve made a blanket and, IMHO, very serious charge without making an argument by actually offering an actual example of how me or anyone else above is “as bad as Ann Coulter, et. al.”. I take that as an assertion that whoever you’re referring to is a deliberate liar with absolutely no moral boundaries or intellectual scruples – someone who’ll do the political version of a Tijuana donkey show if the price is right. If you’re including me in that accusation – since I’m more partisan than most people here – I’d like to at least know what I’ve said that so offends you and puts me in the company of pond scum.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:11 am
No Reg, you’re one of the exceptions. If you read my response to Den’s comment, you will see I made the point that with Den’s (and some others) ‘lie low strategy’ democrat’s like you,asking for your party to take a stand, should be quiet, “Shut up and enjoy the shadenf
October 4th, 2006 at 8:18 am
No Reg, you’re one of the exceptions. If you read my response to Den’s comment, you will see I made the point that with Den’s (and some others) ‘lie low strategy’, democrat’s like you, asking for your party to take a stand, should be quiet lest some of the s**t sticks. So you should ‘stop with the principles above party and enjoy the other schadenfraude’.
Very sorry you may have read it the wrong way.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:10 am
mr. davidson
what part of this are you having a problem with
from my first post…..”today the IM’s change everything. however they don’t indicate pedophilia–they do indicate trolling for pages aged 16-18. no matter how despicable this may be, it may not even be illegal. either way, foley has been shamed out of congress by republicans. studds got re-elected five more times. there’s the difference.
the only thing i’m certain of is that the dems could care less about the pages–that’s why one of their operatives hid/held the IM’s until now to try to get a house seat. ”
the link provided was for the operatives not foley’s known homosexuality..
that said what is this response? are you learning impaired?
patrick neid,
Your link only talks about Foley’s homosexuality, which apparently was well known even in his district. There is nothing there about his being a pedophile, unless you’re one of those who equates the two. Are you?
most of the shriekers on the left have been calling him a republican pedophile. stop playing dumb. if you are learning impared forgive me for thinking you were pretending.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Exactly WHAT did I say about Monica’s Mother? I’d view the Lewinsky family as the sort of innocent bystanders who get ruffed up by the politics of scandel I generally decry. I suggested the moral confusion of young people is the result of a society that is very confused in general. It is not surprising or strange the Lewinskis were much more cheesed off at Starr; it is he who used their daughter most ruthlessly.
How the Coopers want these things both ways; a week or so ago he called poor Monica “a bimbo.” Seems there’s a good Monica and a bad Monica. Yep, She was portrayed as little Nel hunted down by Snidly Whiplash Willie, my GOD, what if it was YOUR DAUGHTER?!!
Then it turned out she wasn’t going to give states. Opps. Grrr… the nasty little bimbo. Get your story stright Marc, it’s been eight years. So if Clinton has resigned, you would have stopped slinging mud at Al Gore and relized what you were going to do to the country by enabling Bush? What a joke. It’s Ken Starr and his supporters like you who made sure (for the sleaziest partisan and finaical rewards) that Monica’s youthful
foolishness would carry an absurdly high price tag.
Name ONE false charge Clinton’s people leveled against Whiley, Monica (yes, She was stalking him), or any of the rest, and feel free to call me a smear artist. You never go into specifics on this cheesy stuff for a good reason; your holding a lousy hand. The peices the Nation ran on Whiley, or the fact that the N.Y. Times editioral page reversed everything it has ever said on individual rights and fair play when it came to Clinton, were never really answered by the likes of you and Hitchens. They wern’t WILLING LIARS FOR BILL CLINTON. You and Hitchens were willing pawns for Ken Starr.
The partisan interests of both parties are consistent with discouraging fiftyish repressed gay men fooling around with 16 year olds (Adults on these matters in D.C., I am reminded this morning); so the distinction is one of libertarian/progressive snobbery, and carrys no real meaning.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I can’t say I’m not amused by Wall but I believe Marc confused you with Michael Turner, so trying taking half of an offence, But I sympathize, because sometimes I read the posts too fasr as well.
Yes what you say in DC is true and in FL as well as far as the age of consent (However you cannot get married in both states without the permission of a legal guardian under 18, nor can they vote of purchase alcohol, so technically not a complete adult) However, the federal law that Foley passed makes it a criminal offense to discuss or solicit sexual acts with anyone under 18 over the Internet. Ironic? It clearly, however, would fall under many legal definitions of sexual harrassment. Since you never knew or know any pages, it might be better to step away from the sweeping generalizations. I’m also younger than Cummings based on the info disclosed on his post.
I’m confused are you a moral cursader, relativist, or pissed off Democrat?
October 4th, 2006 at 10:52 am
A bit of all three, no doubt.
It is also amusing that after the Studds/Crane offence they changed the rule so that all pages had to be 16, as our congresspeople could no longer be trusted anymore around 14 and 15 year olds.
I believe in purportionality; if you wanted to say “Clinton’s trangressions are bad enough that we throw out the absurd gaming of the system (at taxpayer expense) that was used in catching him, the elements of extortion rewarded, etc.” I would say, “O.K., but I disagree”.
But Cooper and other progressive Clinton haters have never had the honesty to say anything such thing. Starr (and I guess the equaly horrible Robert Ray) were O.K. guys in there book, maybe a bit overzelous. You get this faintly comic huffing and puffing about sexual preditors and child abuse that has little or nothing to do with the case at hand.
And yes, human sexuality is a big old messy bag of worms; chase out nature with a pitchfork but it comes back to run for reelection. I know this is not true of the veritable monks who write our progressive journalism, but I think it holds true for human beings in general.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Wall, come on already. I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who admires Starr or who thinks he was just a little overzealous. I’m not big fan of Clinton’s and I regard Starr as an incredible opportunistic weasle.
As for puritan progressives, isn’t it fair to say that he can have whatever kind of sex he wants, but that maybe he should cruise for it somewhere other than work, and with people (age and work relationship), that are not so clearly below him in power? Sure, a sixteen-year-old is capable of seduction, but adults recognize their responsibility not to engage in these things even if they are on offer. And they certainly should not be encouraging them. Don’t you find it creepy when you hear stories of 40-year-old men dating 19-year-old women? I know I do, and it usually means there is something a bit askew with the 40-year-old.
And your suggestion that they are “sharp,” etc. offers too easy absolution for people who ought to know better and behave more responsibly under the cirsumstances. It’s pretty easy: Don’t fuck around with the seventeen-year-olds when you’re above a certain age. Or am I not understanding your point?
October 4th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Sorry Dan, I think you need to go back to Marc Cooper’s interviews with Christopher Hitchens, who was never challeged in finding Starr O.K. but maybe a little humorless. Indeed, nobody much was in the Impeachment camp with cavots and regrets.
40? My God your getting brutal… Well, you young wippersnappers will see how fast it all passes soon enough. Of course, what you say is all true. But “creepy” is an ill defined legal concept.
I think the Repubs are crazy for having closeted gays in office, and I don’t know how they manage to keep electing them.
I know there is a diference between the enlighted use of the word “gay” and the lives these guys lead. But still… you’d think they’d be pragmatic enough to see the problem.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
So Patrick Neid blames Democrats for the political fallout from Foley’s sexual harassment and Wall blames Republicans for the fallout from Clinton’s. Symmetry is nice.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Hmmmmm… Not sure what you mean. If you’re talking about the Impeachment of the President as “fallout”, we’re the Public and the vast majority of historical and legal experts on one side and the Republicans and Media on the other, yeah, I blame the republicans. If your talking about the Press’s subsequent no holds barred attack on all Gore, which I view as payback, no; that
blame rests soley on people like Chris Matthews, Frank Rich, etc., many of them hardly considered conservatives.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Can we agree that Bill did a no – no. But it was a private no – no that hurt his family. And he kept his family together and raised a pretty good kid. At least I never heard of Chelsea getting into scrapes like Jenna and not-Jenna!
What Foley did was a probable violation of law. Hell he ought to know since he wrote it! But what Hastart, Boehner Et. Al. did was worse. They knew and did nothing because Foley was a cash cow and held a safe seat. And now Dennis the Menace goes on the drug addict’s show and says this whole thing is a plot by Dems to get him! You can just smell the flop sweat. He’ll be gone by the weekebnd but it doesn’t matter. Get ready for Speaker Pelosi.
Marc I simply thought it important to point out, continually, that elections have consequences and one of those consequences is who gets to appoint board members. And an Al Gore NLRB would make it easier, not harder, for people to organize. And that is a little victory that helps real people (Not Beverly Hills Limo libs) who need all the help they can get. No one bashes the Dem Establishment more and harder than KOS – see CRASHING THE GATE. But he knows that today in America there is no other vessel for change. Sorry, maybe that is unfair. But that’s the way it is.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Here’s some more jokes Wall, some Reps are now discussing abolishing the page program all together.
Patrick, the you linked blog implies that it was rumored that Foley was gay, and living that lifestyle in FL with young men “close to underage”. Nothing about 16 year old pages in Washington DC. And I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a Dem who sat on it for political advantage, however, I’m gonna need a name, or something more concrete than a blog before you start calling people learning impaired. As well trained as the Reps are at slinging the mud (Swfit Boat anyone) and six days of non stop coverage, a Dem still hasn’t been found that knew about the e-mails.
As far as the FBI is concerned, several outlets from the Washington Times to the New York Times have reported that the FBI has known since July.
Are you more upset by this guys behavior, or that his behavior may cost the Reps a few seats in Congress?
October 4th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
He was president of the most powerful country in the world. There is no such thing as a “private no – no.” Do I think there was an over reaction? Yeah. So did the majority of Americans. Do I think, like RLC and Wall, that it was an issue of small importance that the Republican scandal machine generated to bring down a Democratic president? Partially. But if you think that the VICTIM in that debacle was Bill Clintion, well, you’re drinking the same water you’re peeing in. Is that a saying? Anyway, there’s gotta be some reason Wall is putting up posts like this:
“we’re the Public and the vast majority of historical and legal experts on one side and the Republicans and Media on the other, yeah, I blame the republicans. If your talking about the Press’s subsequent no holds barred attack on all Gore, which I view as payback, no; that blame rests soley on people like Chris Matthews, Frank Rich, etc., many of them hardly considered conservatives. “
October 4th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I veamently deny drinking my own unrine.
Consider what has been going on for the last six years with Jack Abrimoff, and consider his proxsidimity to the White House.
Then mediate on the fact that Clinton’s Impeachment sprang from a six year investigation into an 11 year land deal that he had already been (rightfully) exonerated of any wrongdoing a number of times.
Consider the media attention, say, the number of “Nightline” shows done on Whitewater vrs. the number on Enron (The Bush White House excused for it’s ties to Lay, it’s written off as another bipartisan scandel) etc. etc. The outrage over fund raising sleep overs at the Clinton White House, for instance. The fund rasing sleep overs contiuned, but the outrage vanished. Remember the outrage in the press when Democratic congresses would vote themselves raises? Same thing.
Hmm…. Bill Clinton as victim? You used the word, I didn’t. In the end, we were the victims of this outragous double standard, and the result were the biggest crooks in the pollitical game getting an endless free ride. If you want to be a sap and believe Abrimoff was another “bipartisan” scandel, keep agreeing with Marc Cooper.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:18 am
What we have here are people so eneavored of power and holding on to it that it’s a matter of time before it all comes tumbling down in a heap of hubris.
What people are overlooking is that laws against the sexual exploitation of minors were being pushed the same way anti-sodomy were pushed–by self-loathing closet cases who fear they cannot control their own sexual impulses.
To paraphrase a famous quote, sodomy is in the groin of the beholder.
October 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
It’s the Cover Up Stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2itKgUtSRI
One of the first official actions taken by the New Mexico Secretary of Children, Leather Heather Wilson (now Rep. Wilson) was to have her husband’s (Jay Hone) confidential file removed from the Department’s central location and hidden.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so!
RAW acquires police report Congresswoman accused of stealing; Husband accused of touching boy inappropriately
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congresswoman_on_page_board_buried_file_1019.html
Wilson also currently serves on the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s caucus.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! Vqz7SNtL6mMAzn
May 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
eaaav
June 29th, 2007 at 2:56 am
dog boarding los angeles…
Hi. Thanks for the good read….
January 19th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Teen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…